Any Young Earth Creationists Left?

Home » Forums » Discussions » Booooring!

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/sumerians_look_on_in_confusion_as

Black Dragon Say:"request exigency medical acclaim if your erection is piercing"

  • Scrybe

  • Mon, 01/11/2010 - 18:49
12next ›last »

Im still a young earth creationist...though I cant say I can defend it with any real confidence, its just what I lean towards since I think humans were pretty much created from the start. Of course, that entirely hinges on whether you assume the genesis story was a literal 6 days or whatever, which I could care less upon whether it is or not lol.

Music project: www.myspace.com/ofwinterembers
Blog project: http://savagesoto.blogspot.com
Design: www.ericsotodesigns.com

/headdesk

Http://www.ragingrev.com

they have desks for your head now? are they comfy?

Music project: www.myspace.com/ofwinterembers
Blog project: http://savagesoto.blogspot.com
Design: www.ericsotodesigns.com

RevOxley_501/headdesk

You're doing it wrong

............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.\`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`

ah, well that gesture changes everything. Lemme adjust my position now to a more logically acceptable conclusion:

the earth is billions of years old because if it wasnt macro evolution couldnt have happened and as we know macro evolution is er...uhm a fact. And nothing else is a possible solution, Yeah...

Music project: www.myspace.com/ofwinterembers
Blog project: http://savagesoto.blogspot.com
Design: www.ericsotodesigns.com

Thank God we still have ONE.

And... Not trying to change your mind or anything, Soto, but check out this site. Listen to some of their podcasts, read some of their articles. You might find it stimulating.

http://www.reasons.org/

Black Dragon Say:"request exigency medical acclaim if your erection is piercing"

  • Scrybe

  • Mon, 01/11/2010 - 20:40

SavageSotoIm still a young earth creationist...
I know this is a very old and tired subject to discuss, but.. cmon!

Do you believe that we have calculated the speed of light correctly? If so, how would you explain being able to see the light from stars which are billions of light years away? Dinosaurs? Plate tectonics?

I mean, you've got to understand how silly this sounds. The earths actual age is 4.6 billion years, and believing that it is under 10,000 is like saying that the distance between the west and east coasts of the United States is thirty feet..

If someone told you that, though there is clear proof right in front of your face that it simply isn't true.. what would you think of that belief of theirs? Silly? Me too.

  • Tyler

  • Mon, 01/11/2010 - 22:21

Tyler

Do you believe that we have calculated the speed of light correctly?

Just to play Satan's advocate here... how do you know we have?

Black Dragon Say:"request exigency medical acclaim if your erection is piercing"

  • Scrybe

  • Mon, 01/11/2010 - 22:32

It's called putting mirrors on the moon, shooting lasers at them, and calculating how long it takes for them to return.

Calculating how? And... wasn't it Einstein who first hypothesized the speed of light?

Black Dragon Say:"request exigency medical acclaim if your erection is piercing"

  • Scrybe

  • Mon, 01/11/2010 - 22:36

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99388.htm

You can't go faster than the speed of light.

Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Of course not. That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208.

How in the hell did Donny Darko exactly go really really really really fast to travel time anyhow?

Is he kind of like iron man and will go back in time to save mankind, but in the end crush us with his wrath?

http://electrichand.blogspot.com
http://truthiness.blogdrive.com/
fuxck gnostics

He was a superhero or some shit.

Catharsishttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99388.htm

Some Scientist Type Guy
If you know exactly
how many wavelengths of light lie between the two mirrors, and also
know the precise frequency of that light (which requires other
methods to determine) you can determine the speed (in the laboratory
atmosphere) according to the product of those two numbers.

Bold mine.

Some Scientist Type Guy
In fact, the speed of light no longer needs to be measured: it is
defined as an international standard, and the units of distance are
then derived from it (since we can measure time much more precisely
than distance).

There are pretty hefty ramifications here if you care to look into them.

Black Dragon Say:"request exigency medical acclaim if your erection is piercing"

  • Scrybe

  • Mon, 01/11/2010 - 22:54

The problem I have with the whole "science says so, so it must be true" argument for the earth being billions of years, is the whole fact that if that theory didnt exist, many of the same scientists would have no leg to stand on when it comes to macro evolution because it would take much longer than a few thousand years for one species to evolve into another. More over, not every scientist endorses the idea that the earth is billions of years old. You can say 'well most do", but is consensus always right? How many times in humanity have we went along with something just because most of those around us do? How does that neccesarily validate something and why is science treated as immune from this problem?

On top of that, most may have an agenda, dont pretend that the absolute truth whatever it may be is always what scientists are looking for or willing to accept. Not saying that they all see the evidence for the earth being younger than they say and they simply refuse to accept it, but we all come with preconceptions to evidence and in one way or another and devise our ideas around them, rather than making a new conclusion entirely.

So, call me crazy, but what if at least some of the methods the majority of scientests use to date rocks, and bones and the like are biased to one degree in light of their theory? I mean the whole idea of the earth being billions of years old I dont think is older than the whole theory of evolution, if not younger, so how people dont see a correlation in their devopment is astonishing.

This is a subject, among others, that I hope to dig into more after I read all the books Im trying to right now, but I just dont totally buy the whole thing.

and scrybe I will check out that link

Music project: www.myspace.com/ofwinterembers
Blog project: http://savagesoto.blogspot.com
Design: www.ericsotodesigns.com

Take some geology and biology courses, please. I beg of you.

CatharsisTake some geology and biology courses, please. I beg of you.

No offense, but you saying that reminds me of the people in my church that say "go take some theology classes" whenever I express my quams with core doctrines. Not saying theres anything wrong with taking classes or reading, or talking to "experts" to better understand things, but why on Gods green earth do we swear by authorities in such a way? Has everyone whos taken a geology and biology course(by the way I have taken biology) come to the same unavoidable conclusion that the earth is billions of years old, no question about it? has everyone whos gone to a christian seminary come to the same unavoidable conclusions about God and perceptions on the bible?

I liked biology class, I like watching Cosmos, but there is this potentially dangerous little thing in us humans that always seeks to deem some person(s) as the bearers of absolute, irrefutable truth...be them a pastor, a bible theologian, or a scientist.

Perhaps Im unfairly comparing those two things but I feel our attitude towards them is very similar.

Music project: www.myspace.com/ofwinterembers
Blog project: http://savagesoto.blogspot.com
Design: www.ericsotodesigns.com

You can't compare science and theology (apples and oranges) because science is always open to change if you can provide verifiable data that can be reproduced by your colleagues. We have so much evidence in support of an old earth and I just think if you would take a look at what people have done throughout the history of geology and biology, you might understand where people come from when they just don't understand how people can believe in a young earth.

I would tell you to youtube "Why do people laugh at creationists?", but VenomfangX is a douchebag and illegally filed DMCAs on all of his videos.

Here's one of the few that still works, but it doesn't really cover the earlier science and such like his first 10 or 15.

What I learned from educating myself in the sciences was not so much a wall of irrefutable evidence, but rather I found out the inventors and promoters of these scientific theories are not the boogiemen that my fundamentalist upbringing made them out to be. I no longer believe that most of them have ulterior motives or even CARE about the ramifications of their theories for theological or philosophical reasons. Yes, a general bias towards naturalism exists, just as you would expect with a group of people who choose to study nature. The pertinent question is this: Is that bias so powerful that it would cause hundreds of thousands of individual scientists to cover up, ignore, or downplay data that contradicts their worldview? And if that is the case, how do you explain the very successful history of science and it's contribution to our world?

Black Dragon Say:"request exigency medical acclaim if your erection is piercing"

  • Scrybe

  • Tue, 01/12/2010 - 02:04

I always find it funny when creationists and certain sects of Christianity complain about the evils of science, only to do so on their new-fangled gizmos called compooters and watch their sports arena shows on them there HDTVs.

  • Tyler

  • Tue, 01/12/2010 - 14:55

Scrybe And if that is the case, how do you explain the very successful history of science and it's contribution to our world?
Obviously it is Satan and his "worldly wisdom".

"to be is to do" -socrates/plato. "to do is to be" - descartes. "do be do be do" - sinatra.

  • OZG

  • Tue, 01/12/2010 - 15:07

Wow... those vids are amazing. I'm inspired to teach sunday school now!

Black Dragon Say:"request exigency medical acclaim if your erection is piercing"

  • Scrybe

  • Tue, 01/12/2010 - 18:26

You gotta add in the winks.

"Sodom, which was named after Sodomy. *wink*"

I have no stance on the issue whatsoever, but here is something to ponder.

What if both are right? What if the Earth does appear billions of years old but is only 10,000 years old?

For example, one way we can measure time is to look at the stars. If God created the light from the stars already here when he created the earth, the star light measurement is skewed.

Also, God did not create a completely smooth earth with water on top. He created mountains and valleys and various other features. If we look at a canyon and say "It would take 10 million years water to carve out this canyon" that may be true, but it might also be true that God created the canyon as it was.

Just a thought.

xfreekxI have no stance on the issue whatsoever, but here is something to ponder.

What if both are right? What if the Earth does appear billions of years old but is only 10,000 years old?

For example, one way we can measure time is to look at the stars. If God created the light from the stars already here when he created the earth, the star light measurement is skewed.

Also, God did not create a completely smooth earth with water on top. He created mountains and valleys and various other features. If we look at a canyon and say "It would take 10 million years water to carve out this canyon" that may be true, but it might also be true that God created the canyon as it was.

Just a thought.


that could very well be too

Music project: www.myspace.com/ofwinterembers
Blog project: http://savagesoto.blogspot.com
Design: www.ericsotodesigns.com

Wouldn't that be the same as assuming that God created dinosaur skeletons, but they were already buried under layers of rock? What about the evidence that they actually walked on earth at some point? What about the evidence of plate tectonics that go back millions of years?

Like, at that point it just sounds and seems so desperate to believe in something that has a lot of evidence against it.. that you are just trying to convince yourself anyway you can. "Sure, there's all this evidence that doesn't make sense from a creationist standpoint, but what if that evidence was planted by God?"... I just can't take that very seriously.. Perhaps that's just me?

  • Tyler

  • Thu, 01/14/2010 - 20:31

TylerWouldn't that be the same as assuming that God created dinosaur skeletons, but they were already buried under layers of rock? What about the evidence that they actually walked on earth at some point? What about the evidence of plate tectonics that go back millions of years?

Like, at that point it just sounds and seems so desperate to believe in something that has a lot of evidence against it.. that you are just trying to convince yourself anyway you can. "Sure, there's all this evidence that doesn't make sense from a creationist standpoint, but what if that evidence was planted by God?"... I just can't take that very seriously.. Perhaps that's just me?

Mountains and stars are not planted evidence. If God did make the earth, it seems pretty clear he made it with mountains, valleys etc.

As far as the fossils etc goes, these are different. The creationist would say that huge catastrophes caused those rapid fossil deposits. For example, Mt. St. Helens eruption ended up creating deposits that seemed to be thousands of years old in less than ten years. Things like a worldwide flood or giant meteorite (like the one thought to have killed the dinosaurs) would speed up the process of these things significantly.

Again, I believe in a designer, but am not convinced on how long it took or how, just throwing the creation side out there.

xfreekx If God did make the earth, it seems pretty clear he made it with mountains, valleys etc.

Well this touches on an interesting subject. Because mountains and valleys are phenomena that we can see. There is a process by which they come about that we can observe. It's not like the appearance of the first RNA or something that can't even begin to be replicated.

For God to make the earth with mountains and valleys He would either have to A. speed up time so water, wind, tectonics and other geography sculptors had there time to work, or B. Simulate those processes. I find both options just sort of... weird? Why bother? Why not just speak matter into being with the laws of physics and let them do their thing... accrete into large lumps, gradually solidify, merge into chemical compounds like oxygen and silicon and such, and let the forces erode the substances into mountains and valleys. Genesis can be read to support either model I suppose. But one seems far less weird to me.

Black Dragon Say:"request exigency medical acclaim if your erection is piercing"

  • Scrybe

  • Fri, 01/15/2010 - 23:02

*continues to avoid this thread some more

Http://www.ragingrev.com

ScrybeWhat I learned from educating myself in the sciences was not so much a wall of irrefutable evidence, but rather I found out the inventors and promoters of these scientific theories are not the boogiemen that my fundamentalist upbringing made them out to be. I no longer believe that most of them have ulterior motives or even CARE about the ramifications of their theories for theological or philosophical reasons. Yes, a general bias towards naturalism exists, just as you would expect with a group of people who choose to study nature. The pertinent question is this: Is that bias so powerful that it would cause hundreds of thousands of individual scientists to cover up, ignore, or downplay data that contradicts their worldview? And if that is the case, how do you explain the very successful history of science and it's contribution to our world?

nods

Http://www.ragingrev.com

Scrybe, I'm not sure i understand your point. Why wouldn't God just speak a fully formed earth into existence?

Do you think he created a completely flat earth with water sitting on top of it?

God is outside of time and the laws of science, so i see it as option C: Boom, God creates the earth already in process with mountains, valleys, rivers, canyons, oceans, etc.

Its similar with the star light issue. Would God have to speed up time to get the light from stars billions of light years away to earth, or could he just create the stars with the light already on earth. I think the latter makes more sense.

Really? You think a magical sky-being sped up time? I'm a Christian and even I have to facepalm this. Whatever happened to at least theistic evolution?

CatharsisReally? You think a magical sky-being sped up time? I'm a Christian and even I have to facepalm this. Whatever happened to at least theistic evolution?

Is this directed at me? No i don't think anything "sped up" time. I don't know what the hell happened.

I'm just throwing it out there that it's possible when God created the Earth that he created it already in process. Created from nothing, no fast forward button. Did he create adam as a zygote that grew into a man, or did he create him already as a man?

xfreekx

Do you think he created a completely flat earth with water sitting on top of it?

That's not how planets form... at least according to modern theories.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/spitzer_planets_041018.html

As to God forming everything in a mid state... I'm certainly not saying He couldn't do it. I just don't see the point. But I'm not the ultimate arbiter of what makes sense.

Black Dragon Say:"request exigency medical acclaim if your erection is piercing"

  • Scrybe

  • Sun, 01/17/2010 - 05:51

Scrybe
xfreekx

Do you think he created a completely flat earth with water sitting on top of it?

That's not how planets form... at least according to modern theories.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/spitzer_planets_041018.html

As to God forming everything in a mid state... I'm certainly not saying He couldn't do it. I just don't see the point. But I'm not the ultimate arbiter of what makes sense.

Yeah, i don't know either. For the YEC theory to make sense, He would have had to make it in an already functioning state because animals and humans would have been here immediately. That's my point.

I know there was a designer, but have no clue how He did it, nor do i care because we'll never really know. I was making the argument from a YEC standpoint, though in reality it's as mysterious as it's ever been. Obviously God didn't deem it too important to know.

I like to think of human kind in the future evolving into something like what was mentioned in the classic novel, The Time Machine, by H.G. Wells.

Or, the modern version: WALL-E

fykusfireScrybe is what I would deem a genius. Of course with that said, there is a fine line between genius and insanity, and Scrybe is eating that line like spaghetti.

Let me not exist for a fair desire sweet and fresh.

allelesfailedI like to think of human kind in the future evolving into something like what was mentioned in the classic novel, The Time Machine, by H.G. Wells.

Or, the modern version: WALL-E

Ray, have you ever read C.S. Lewis' Paralandra? The last chapter in that has such an awesome, poetic, imaginative theory about evolution as applied to the universe. I just finished it yesterday. It is such an amazing book. But you should read Out of the Silent Planet first.

Black Dragon Say:"request exigency medical acclaim if your erection is piercing"

  • Scrybe

  • Sun, 01/17/2010 - 22:37

xfreekx For the YEC theory to make sense, He would have had to make it in an already functioning state because animals and humans would have been here immediately.

Reasons to Believe (The link I posted above) take the stance that hominids were basically the placeholder for humans, clearing out their ecological niche.

Personally, I don't think Adam and Eve were literal people, but representative of the point at which the human brain had developed enough to have spiritual ramifications and communion with God. (Which I think was the point of creation.) The fall was the change from a hunting-gathering pack to stable civilizations.

Black Dragon Say:"request exigency medical acclaim if your erection is piercing"

  • Scrybe

  • Sun, 01/17/2010 - 22:47

Scrybe
allelesfailedI like to think of human kind in the future evolving into something like what was mentioned in the classic novel, The Time Machine, by H.G. Wells.

Or, the modern version: WALL-E

Ray, have you ever read C.S. Lewis' Paralandra? The last chapter in that has such an awesome, poetic, imaginative theory about evolution as applied to the universe. I just finished it yesterday. It is such an amazing book. But you should read Out of the Silent Planet first.

I have not actually. Sadly, I have only read the typical CS Lewis books like Mere Christianity, Miracles, The Screwtape Letters, parts of The Great Divorce, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

I love his fiction though.

fykusfireScrybe is what I would deem a genius. Of course with that said, there is a fine line between genius and insanity, and Scrybe is eating that line like spaghetti.

Let me not exist for a fair desire sweet and fresh.

Then dude... GET YOU SOME!!!

Black Dragon Say:"request exigency medical acclaim if your erection is piercing"

  • Scrybe

  • Mon, 01/18/2010 - 06:32

Went to Barns & Noble and they only Narnia when it comes to Lewis fiction. I hate buying books online...but now Im left with little choice. I could try some used books store, i know a few good ones around here, but they too often have little Lewis that is not the typical ones.

fykusfireScrybe is what I would deem a genius. Of course with that said, there is a fine line between genius and insanity, and Scrybe is eating that line like spaghetti.

Let me not exist for a fair desire sweet and fresh.

Hm, brendon pretty much gave me - out of the silent planet a long time ago. I'm not sure if I still have it. I'd have to ask if he doesn't mind if I send it to you. I don't think he won't mind.

http://electrichand.blogspot.com
http://truthiness.blogdrive.com/
fuxck gnostics

That would be great. I would even send it back after I was finished. Although fair warning, I usually take 3-4 months to read 1 book.

fykusfireScrybe is what I would deem a genius. Of course with that said, there is a fine line between genius and insanity, and Scrybe is eating that line like spaghetti.

Let me not exist for a fair desire sweet and fresh.

I have the whole trilogy in one book. gimme your address and I'll send it to you.

Black Dragon Say:"request exigency medical acclaim if your erection is piercing"

  • Scrybe

  • Thu, 01/28/2010 - 02:34

I have an extra copy of Perelandra lying around. you should check your local used bookstore you'd be surprised, mine actually has a few copies of each. I think they are kinda used bookstore fodder because its not what people expect from Lewis.

This whole debate is really odd to me.

I used to be a young earth creationist to the core, my grandfather has been writing a book his entire life about young earth creationism. So I've heard almost every argument on that side of the fence.

But when it comes down to it, young earth creationism is flawed from the beginning. It's flawed because it's a way of thinking that goes "I have the answers, they are in the bible. Now I am going to go find evidence that supports it." And they go, they find "evidence" which always ends up being debunked. The only reason such a theory is around is because the bible says six days, and then people try to trace the genealogies back. It's seriously a guessing game based on one of the most contradictory parts of the bible.

Genesis chapters 1 & 2 are DIFFERENT creation stories, they have a different order of events and both have huge logical fallacies within them. But this only happens when you read them as fact and in a literal way. Otherwise it's just an allegorical creation story like in any other religion.

To say "well God just created everything old" is a method of circular logic and you're just trying to escape evidence put in front of you. It's the same way of thinking that goes along with "The Bible is true because it says it's true."

If all babies were delivered by angels, and humans floated and glowed brightly and lacked sex organs and the ability to shit, I might buy that we were specially created on this perfect little planet and it's all just for us. But no, that's not the way it is. We are exactly like animals, only we have bigger brains. Everything we do is just like other mammals even down to our behaviors. Have you ever fucking looked at a monkey? Have you?! What was God just like "heh, this one is kinda like the humans, but funnier". Why are our bodies so imperfect? Why are they just like every other animal? Why do we have moler teeth, and appendixes and tail bones? Why do we reproduce just like every other animal on the planet? There isn't much to show us that we are special or different besides the fact that we are more aware of ourselves than other animals. And then when it comes down to the earth...well, the earth is just one of trillions upon trillions of planets in the known universe.

As we are in the process of beging to photograph exoplanets we are discovered that MOST start systems have planets. That means there are, oh, about 400 billion stars in the milky way, so times the average amount of planets in each system and you get the idea for our galaxy alone. Then go ahead and remind yourself that there are also billions of galaxies. We can only see so far, so that's just what we know.

As we gain more knowledge we learn how less significant we are. You can close your eyes to this because it's not nice to think about, or you can use the brain you have and really think about it. We used to think the world was flat, then we discovered it was round, then we thought we were the center of the solar system once we figured out there were other planets, then we slowly started to realize we aren't the center of anything, we are just a speck on a speck. This is the reality of where we live, creationism or not. We are just one of thousands of species of animals on one planet of trillions in the known universe.

To ignore the evidence that is clearly put before us is to deny God's creation. Because if you believe in God or not, you can't deny what is here. Humans reproduce by stuffing their sex organs into each other, then the cells multiply, and a baby pops out in a bloody mess, just like every other animal. Our sun is one of trillions, there are suns MUCH MUCH bigger than our entire solar system even, and we watch them collapse, and explode and create new clouds of dust which then condense and form new suns and new solar systems. Whatever created the universe set a process in motion, it wasn't just God floating around pulling shit out of a hat, because if that was the way things were created how come things don't continue to be created that way? Why is there a process to death and life that we can observer that has no observable outside influence?

To say God just created everything old and then put these processes in motion is painting a picture of a deceiver, which I don't think God to be. Because then we get into this whole other debate of why God would want to deceive us etc, and we've been down that road before.

In summary, to say God created everything in six days is really to ignore the processes we see that are set in place currently. By observing these patterns here on earth and throughout the universe points us towards the theories we have today about the origin of creation. This is the world that is here, and it behaves a certain way. I don't think of it as some sort of prop or stage that has been set up by God for his play of humanity. I think it's a lot bigger and harder to understand than that. We like to have answers, and observing fact only points to how insignificant we are and how little we know. So, do what you will with it.

In strange ideas, In stranger times
I've no idea, What's right sometimes

  • JER

  • Fri, 02/05/2010 - 06:30
12next ›last »
Home » Forums » Discussions » Booooring!
User Login
Register Forgot Password?

Search

New in the Forums